Whiteness as a culture and identity is a myth. It was brought about during the early days of the colonies when rich white males saw that workers were finding common struggles with minorities. They aimed to drive a wedge in order to control the population. They fed the european settlers a lie, telling them they could have some land and a voice if they helped to keep the POC population “in check”. Before all this, european nations that were predominantly white did not bond over their “whiteness”. They fought each other as Frenchman, British, Spaniards, etc. I welcome the decline of White as an identity. Be proud of your heritage. Be proud of being French, German, Irish, or whatever. But understand there is no pride in simply being “White”. The things that Buchanan are saying only serve to divide the people, not unite them. Down with the white supremacist culture of America.

Jackie Rawlings · Top Commenter

Shannon you are a smart well educated American and girl you know your history well. The Good news is people like Pat are dying out and the new generations only look at racism as history. I loved reading US history and every time I pick up a book I learn a little more. I read President Obama isn’t our first bi-racial President but the 6th one. I learned from leaders like JFK, Dr. King and first from my parents that I am an American who happens to be of color.

The truth is that Mozart, Pascal, Boolean algebra, Shakespeare, parliamentary government, baroque churches, Newton, the emancipation of women, Kant, Marx, and Balanchine [BAL-in-sheen] ballets don’t redeem what this particular civilization has wrought upon the world. The white race is the cancer of human history.

It is often said that Obama’s presidency has given black parents the right to tell their kids with a straight face that they can do anything. This is a function not only of Obama’s election to the White House but of the way his presidency broadcasts an easy, almost mystic, blackness to the world. The Obama family represents our ideal imagining of ourselves—an ideal we so rarely see on any kind of national stage.

What black people are experiencing right now is a kind of privilege previously withheld—seeing our most sacred cultural practices and tropes validated in the world’s highest office. Throughout the whole of American history, this kind of cultural power was wielded solely by whites, and with such ubiquity that it was not even commented upon. The expansion of this cultural power beyond the private province of whites has been a tremendous advance for black America. Conversely, for those who’ve long treasured white exclusivity, the existence of a President Barack Obama is discombobulating, even terrifying. For as surely as the iconic picture of the young black boy reaching out to touch the president’s curly hair sends one message to black America, it sends another to those who have enjoyed the power of whiteness.

In such ways was the tie between citizenship and whiteness in America made plain from the very beginning. By the 19th century, there was, as Matthew Jacobson, a professor of history and American studies at Yale, has put it, “an un­questioned acceptance of whiteness as a prerequisite for naturalized citizenship.” Debating Abraham Lincoln during the race for a U.S. Senate seat in Illinois in 1858, Stephen Douglas asserted that “this government was made on the white basis” and that the Framers had made “no reference either to the Negro, the savage Indians, the Feejee, the Malay, or an other inferior and degraded race, when they spoke of the equality of men.”

After the Civil War, Andrew Johnson, Lincoln’s successor as president and a unionist, scoffed at awarding the Negro the franchise:

The peculiar qualities which should characterize any people who are fit to decide upon the management of public affairs for a great state have seldom been combined. It is the glory of white men to know that they have had these qualities in sufficient measure to build upon this continent a great political fabric and to preserve its stability for more than ninety years, while in every other part of the world all similar experiments have failed. But if anything can be proved by known facts, if all reasoning upon evidence is not abandoned, it must be acknowledged that in the progress of nations Negroes have shown less capacity for government than any other race of people. No independent government of any form has ever been successful in their hands. On the contrary, wherever they have been left to their own devices they have shown a constant tendency to relapse into barbarism.

The notion of blacks as particularly unfit for political equality persisted well into the 20th century. As the nation began considering integrating its military, a young West Virginian wrote to a senator in 1944:

I am a typical American, a southerner, and 27 years of age … I am loyal to my country and know but reverence to her flag, BUT I shall never submit to fight beneath that banner with a negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throw back to the blackest specimen from the wilds.

The writer—who never joined the military, but did join the Ku Klux Klan—was Robert Byrd, who died in 2010 as the longest-serving U.S. senator in history. Byrd’s rejection of political equality was echoed in 1957 by William F. Buckley Jr., who addressed the moral disgrace of segregation by endorsing disenfranchisement strictly based on skin color:

The central question that emerges—and it is not a parliamentary question or a question that is answered by merely consulting a catalog of the rights of American citizens, born Equal—is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes—the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race.

Buckley, the founder of National Review, went on to assert, “The great majority of the Negroes of the South who do not vote do not care to vote and would not know for what to vote if they could.”

The idea that blacks should hold no place of consequence in the American political future has affected every sector of American society, transforming whiteness itself into a monopoly on American possibilities. White people like Byrd and Buckley were raised in a time when, by law, they were assured of never having to compete with black people for the best of anything. Blacks used in­ferior public pools and inferior washrooms, attended inferior schools. The nicest restaurants turned them away. In large swaths of the country, blacks paid taxes but could neither attend the best universities nor exercise the right to vote. The best jobs, the richest neighborhoods, were giant set-asides for whites—universal affirmative action, with no pretense of restitution.

That’s right. That’s how it used to be. Whites didn’t think Whiteness was stupid, crazy, or evil and instead openly and actively pursued their best interests as Whites.

Act of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat 103-104) (Excerpts) That any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof

Coates’ article is an example of the niggerization of politcal discourse, whereby race-conscious blacks freely project their own racial fears and animosities onto hopelessly deracinated Whites.

The podcast will be broadcast and available for download on Tuesday at 9PM ET.

29 Responses

Susan Sonntag has it ass backwards, Jews are a cancer on the White race as they were the ones that infiltrated the White race long ago and have been destroying White civilization from within ever since.

And THAT is is the Bible when one takes the time to read it PROPERLY, ala CI!!! It is self-evident in the secular histories of that time as well, via Cicero et al.

@David, I hear ya. But what do you say about folks on our own side, fellow WN’s, who claim that Jesus was nothing more than a “kike on a spike”? How do you fight that without name calling? I’d sure like to hear your answer, as I have none.

“THAT is is the Bible when one takes the time to read it PROPERLY, ala CI!!!”

There is not now, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be, a “proper” reading.

It would be a great step forward, in my opinion, if we could stop operating as if our existential truth inhered in a document, and start taking personal responsibility for our opinions rather than projecting them onto the ambiguities of a document.

C.I. uses the bible as a 1,500 page Ouija Board in order to give insecure White men plausible deniability for taking pride in themselves and expressing their rightful hatred of Jews.

There’s nothing wrong with that pride and hatred. In fact, I applaud it. I only wish C.I. could stop crediting Yahweh-Satan for the human light it sheds, but that would be Luciferian by definition of the document on which they depend for existential validation.

Jimmah, are you on our side or theirs? I merely brought it up because aside from the mystical elements in it, the Bible is also a history book, but you are more obsessed with Christian bashing than going after our mutual enemy, or perhaps they are not OUR mutual enemy, eh, Jimmah? The only people I know of that hate Christians with the same vehemence as you are ….. Jews by golly!!! If it quacks like a duck, it may as well be a duck.

THE BRITISH ISRAEL nonsense has its origins in the Jews’ myth about the “lost ten tribes,” who were the Sheenies who had scattered throughout the civilized world and set up their colonies wherever the natives were sufficiently industrious and prosperous to be fleeced. In the Middle Ages there were all sort of tales about where the ten tribes were living, and this drivel was given a great impetus in the time of Cromwell, when a Kike turned up with the story that he had found in Peru a tribe of Indians who understood and spoke Hebrew and so must be descendants of the “ten tribes.” This eventually produced Joseph Smith’s variety of Christianity, which I mentioned in the December 1989 issue of Liberty Bell.

The Puritans of the Commonwealth and perhaps Cromwell himself (unless he was cynically repaying the Yids who had financed his revolution) were suckers for propaganda to the effect that the kindred peoples, God’s Race and the English, if united, would rule the world, but so far as I know, the specific statement that the “ten tribes” had migrated to Britain was first made by a Huguenot refugee in England named Abbadie around 1688; the only edition of his book, Le triomphe de la providence et de la religion, known to me was published at Amsterdam in 1723, but may not be the first.

The “British Israel Movement” was begun by an English lunatic, Richard Brothers, who, in 1793, discovered that he was God’s Nephew, because God = Jesus, and he was the son of Jesus’s brother, Jakob (James); there were, of course, some chronological difficulties in fixing his birthday, but with God all things are possible. Brothers, therefore, was by his glorious heredity, the “Prince of the Jews” and the destined ruler of the world, and therefore the true King of Great Britain. George III did not agree, and Brothers accordingly was locked up for a while, but there were in England persons no more intelligent than he, including at least one an influential Whig in the Parliament; they procured his release and censored his ravings so that they could be published without exciting derision. The only one I have seen is entitled A Correct Account of the Invasion and Conquest of this Island by the Saxons,…the Descendants of the Greater Part of the Ten Tribes.

This kind of hogwash, doubtless financed by the Yids, was especially popular as justifying the admission of undisguised Kikes to full British citizenship, and as fostering the comforting dream of British-Jewish dominion over the world, as decreed by old Yahweh.
Thousands of English and Scots developed a thirst for this sweet swill, which seemed to provide an historical justification of Christianity apart from the more or less incredible tales in their holy book. No one, so far as I know, has ever tried to compile a complete bibliography of the hundreds of books and booklets published on this subject, which was officially known as “British-Israel Identity.” The first two words are commonly omitted by epopts of the cult in this country. (I remember having heard, years ago, the beginning of a quarrel between two female crackpots, who differed on the question of whether Americans were descended from the same Israelite tribe as the British or a different one. I left before the hair-pulling started.)

There are all sorts of amusing incidents in this carnival, e.g., one book was translated into Italian by an Englishman eager to tell the Italians who owned the world.

A. F. R. A. Glover (not, I devoutly hope, an ancestor of the well-known Classical scholar!), constructed an elaborate genealogy, showing, step by step, the descent of Queen Victoria from a bandit chief named David, who is conspicuously mentioned in the Jew-Book. No one seems to know whether the Queen was amused. One wonders also whether she knew whether or not her adored husband, Prince Albert, was half a Jew. (There was a rumor that his royal father’s Yiddish treasurer consoled the queen for her husband’s insuperable aversion from women. Frank Harris, somewhere in his voluminous memoirs, says that Victoria’s son, King Edward VII, spoke German with the accent of a Bavarian Jew, but refuses to discuss the scandal, well-known in his day.)

There was a certain amount of truth in the claims of the votaries of British-Israel Identity. Remember that even in the time of the great King Edward I, who tried to clean up England in 1290, any Sheeny who was not a notoriously criminal usurer could scurry around to the nearest church and persuade or pay a credulous or venal clergyman to sprinkle him with magic water, which instantly made him an Englishman and beyond the King’s power. A large number of Jews did precisely that, accumulated large fortunes, and married their lavishly dowered daughters to the sons of necessitous or greedy members of the landed gentry and not infrequently even to sons of peers. This calculated pollution of English blood had gone so far by the first decades of this century that Hilaire Belloc was sure that none of the great territorial families was without a Jewish admixture that was evident in the features of their young men.

The British-Israel poppycock greatly facilitated the rise of Jews to political power in the train of D’Israeli, whom Victoria made a British earl (!) and, for a time, her Prime Minister. The recent ascent of a rabbi to the House of Lords is only the natural result of the growing corruption of the preceding century.

The British-Israel agitation had a disastrous consequence. Men like Cecil Rhodes and Lord Milner were too intelligent, of course, to take the genealogical drivel seriously, but they were so gullible that they did believe in a permanent alliance between Great Britain and Jewry. That sealed the doom of Britain, for the Jews, with their fixed and instinctive policy of “first defile, and then destroy,” naturally ruin first the nations, such as Germany and Britain, that were most hospitable to them.

Revilo Oliver was a great man, but was NOT a Bible scholar, nor did he have everything else right either. In the early days of the John Birch Society, he was not all that savvy about the Jews being THE problem, and it took him some time to finally wake up to the real problem and leave JBS so he could talk “openly” about it and the Society’s being used to divert attention from the source of our woes. Even then, he was not running around yelling Jew from every house top.

He once expounded on the fall of Egypt due to “socialism” but did not consider the racial element of Egypt changing from a White people to a mixed people.

And in this particular treatise you posted he is reacting to BRITISH ISRAEL notions from the late 1800′s that associated Brits with the Jews (who were NOT the original Israelites) and not acknowledging their truly Anglo-Saxon roots (Germanic) and the commonality of White Europeans. That SOB Winston Churchill himself referred to Germans as a race instead of an ethnicity (of the SAME race) and called them Huns, while they are in fact of the same blood as the Brits. His own king was of German nobility of the royal house of Hanover. That shows you how smart the average Brit is!!!

If you go back in time there are plenty of citations of the true Israelite ancestry of the White race, most notably the Scottish Declaration of Independence and the Stone of Destiny itself (the Stone of Scone or Jacob’s Pillow) which is one of the Israelite artifacts brought into Europe (Ireland originally) by the Phoenicians (who were also White Israelites). It is often cited that Phoenicians are Israelites and they sailed out of the Mediterranean and traced the Atlantic coast, coming to the Emerald Isles and mining tin in England during the Greek period.

Today, sadly, most royals are either interbred with Jews or have been killed off or driven into obscurity. The Romanoffs were murdered, others like my own Ukrainian ancestors were driven out by the Bolsheviks.

Jimmah, you’ve built a house of cards and you are wasting your energy fighting the wrong people, UNLESS you are a troll and THAT is your purpose. I have no more time for your crap. Either fight our enemy or go to hell. I don’t care if you are a Wotanist, atheist, Catholic, CI, Buddhist or whatever as long as you are focussed on the enemy of us all. Either get on board or disappear.

Jimmy – David said he would not reply to you on this anymore, so I will. This is what he brought up in the first place:

Susan Sonntag has it ass backwards, Jews are a cancer on the White race as they were the ones that infiltrated the White race long ago and have been destroying White civilization from within ever since.

And THAT is is the Bible when one takes the time to read it PROPERLY, ala CI!!! It is self-evident in the secular histories of that time as well, via Cicero et al.

I don’t see where he “introduced the topic” that you say he did. If you’re going to say that he introduced a topic and then he said he didn’t care about it, you had better point out where and what. It’s not at all clear so, as it is, you look like a trickster. Or are you just being obtuse again?

Naturally, he meant in the fight against the Jew, he doesn’t care if you are CI or not. You are the one who posted the attack on CI by Revilo Oliver. David is only defending his own beliefs.

The first comment on this thread is authored by David and refers to a religion: Christian Identity.

Tanstaafl’s post and podcast dealt with White Identity.

Religion was not mentioned until introduced by David in the first comment.

I took exception to this because I routinely see White Identity conflated with Christian Identity* and strongly believe the latter is a handicap to the former.

I think White Identity is a sufficient cross to bear.

As fighters, we should work to keep our identity as lean as possible.

*I refer here, not to the specific denomination, “Christian Identity” but to Christianity in general, which is mistakenly seen by some as connoting Whiteness, even though the fastest growing existential threat to Whites in North America is from the immigration of Christians from Mexico.

Jimmy – Tan’s podcast dealt with White identity, not White Identity (with a capital ‘I’). There is no movement or organization named White Identity that I know of. In his program notes, Tan never uses the term White identity, apart from the title, which is capitalized. Tan does mention Susan Sontag, and David writes a comment based on Susan Sontag. He says that one can find evidence of Jews bent on destroying White civilization in the Bible, especially if read according to the beliefs of CI, and also in secular histories such as Cicero. All this is perfectly okay as far as I can see. David hasn’t broken any rules or misrepresented anything Tan said in his program. If he wants to mention religion in a comment, he is fully free to do so.

You take exception because of your fanatical hatred of Christianity. You now say that it’s because you “routinely see White Identity [capital I again] conflated with Christian Identity.” I don’t agree. In our past, this was so. When our European, Christian civilization was all White, Christian was often used synonymously with White. This is no longer the case – if you think so, you must be imagining it. (The Christian Identity movement sees it that way, but the general culture and mainstream religions do not.)

White identity stands on its own, apart from any particular religious beliefs. This is what David was agreeing to when he said

I don’t care if you are a Wotanist, atheist, Catholic, CI, Buddhist or whatever as long as you are focused on the enemy of us all.

Your continual nitpicking reveals the issue is not what you say, but is a desire to destroy Christian beliefs among Whites who identify as White. Instead of welcoming Christians to the struggle, you want to keep them out. What makes you more of a fighter than David? Or smarter?

As to your original charge of David bringing up something that he later contradicted, I see no evidence of that at all.

I fear the bible is heavily contaminated by the editorial tampering of our enemy, and that blanket acceptance of all it’s contents is ill advised.

Being forced to pick and choose which fragments are true, and which are false, leads us to division, and I’m certainly not immune to it.

Aside from Jesus’ driving of the federal reservists from the house of righteousness, my preferred passage is the one in which he identifies the children of Yahweh as the offspring of a deceiver.

I don’t think White people are descended from an archetypal liar.

I think White people love the truth, and thirst for the knowledge of good and evil.

I’m not surprised that a jealous god of omnipotent pretension would despise our appetite for this empowering fruit, or that he would invert the pantheon to discourage our approach through the symbolic intermediary of a tree (e.g. Irminsul).

My views are reflective of my personal interpretation of the bible, but I know if I initiate a commingling of my preferred form of Christianity with our collective racial needs, the latter will suffer as a result, so I would prefer to leave Christian activism outside the discussion of our racial plight.

As I have stated repeatedly and what is a part of the CI take on Christianity is that it IS substantiated by secular historians of the time. When I refer to reading the Bible PROPERLY, then one can consider the historiography of the Bible, BEYOND what petty issues you may have with its religiosity. Thus I brought it up because it illustrates the perpetual conflict that we have had with the jews since the oldest recorded times. Jews then, like today, are a different race of people that have infiltrated our people via their race mixing, perhaps because they have always been Liberals (which is another name you can call the Jews and the Jewish spirit which seems to end up infecting our people (consider that everywhere the Jews have ever gotten a toe hold were places that had a Liberal and licentious spirit, like Bohemia)

Indeed, if you were to take the time to understand CI, you would find that its religiosity is interwoven with its racial exclusivity. This is also true of many regular Christian strains until fairly recent times and the blossoming of ultra-Liberalism in the post-war period. I do not care for other flavors of Christianity myself and accept only CI as something I would consider officially White Nationalist because as you see, the Catholic Church, for all its other shortcomings is horrifically universalist and is as you mentioned, working especially hard towards mixing our people with these Mestizos (not that Protestants aren’t, but the Catholic Church was invented to be universalist from its origins as it became the official religion of the Roman Empire. As the band Mission of Burma once sang. “the Roman Empire never died, it just became the Catholic Church”. I grew up in Revere, Massachusetts. When I was a kid, looking back now knowing a lot more about the way the world works, It was a Catholic city, predominantly Irish and Italians. In fact, the whole Boston North area was once primarily Irish and Italian Catholics, and of course, many of these two groups intermarried, and they are very different ethnicities, save their Catholicism.

All that being said, Christianity is part of White European heritage. At its best it united Europe against the Moors, the Mongols, Turks and the Arabs. It gave us all some common heritage, before we imposed it on non-Whites and allowed them into that extra-racial commonality. But for THAT, you can blame imperialism, and believe it or not, THAT too is addressed in the Bible. When the Israelites did not kill off their enemies when conquering a territory, they were forced to absorb those people into their society, just as we do today. THAT caused the racial breakdown then (which is what the Book is really about, according to CI) and our Invade/Invite imperialism today, learned from the once great British Empire, is what is destroying us racially now. If you cannot make this simple practical association you are simply too fanatically anti-Christian to be bothered with. Most White people are at least tacitly Christian, whether they practice some form of it or merely pay it lip service. For this reason, being viciously anti-Christian will not help our cause in any way. Odinists who are determined to not associate with Xianity likewise confine themselves to a small ineffectual clique of fetishists.

One of the most cogent outlines (to my ears) was Norman Lowell addressing the New Right in London. He based his discussion of Yawkey’s Imperium and it very lucid and Libertarian enough to act as an umbrella for us all, with its call to Sacred Geography, the notion that ethnicities should be protected along with the territories they have traditionally inhabited and the acceptance of cosmotheology on the one hand (for the Elites in his Imperium) and Christology, for those who must have some form of Christianity. In Christology, Caius Marcus envisions a “rewriting” of the Christ story, taking out the parts where He is shown as “weak” and ministering to the rabble, and instead focussing on His defiance of the Jewish oppressors. Lowell and Marcus have an anti-Christian attitude based on the Judeo-Christianity of modern times and also seem to have issues with accepting that Aryans are less than perfect and noble all the time. Part of most important aspect of CI is embracing the notion that we do indeed FAIL a lot as a people, we do have moral shortcomings, and THAT is the reason we are PUNISHED by God. it is no different than saying we get what we deserve ala KARMA. Whatever you call it, it is the same principle at work. If you screw up because you want something today, say a hot little Vietnamese masseuse, then you are creating a dilemma not only for you, but for the rest of us, as we will be expected to accept your relationship, and your mixed offspring will ended up mixing with Whites down the road as well, thereby polluting the gene pool like a ripple on the water.

I approach CI from a purely practical sensibility, and because it fits our movement completely, and it feels good to say that in this fight I can put on the “whole armor of God”. Unlike John Lennon’s take on God, “God is a concept by which we measure our pain”, our view should be that our God is how we measure our RESOLVE.

I do NOT want to see Marcus’ Christology be the norm by the way. I think if you take out the Old Testament you take out the part that is MOST important, which illustrates that it is our moral failure that leads us to ruin. I think we should ALWAYS be concerned that MAMMON, the world and its temptations, will always lead to our failings to preserve our race. Hitler himself says this clearly in Chapter 11 of Mein Kampf, Nation & Race. It is rampant throughout National Socialist thought, and pre-NS as well. You can read it in the new releases of Gottfried Feder’s work. So why are we still even debating the issue with trolls that want to stir up internal fights?

I will take this opportunity to point out that the American Old Right, according to the accepted use of the term, encompasses people like Revilo Oliver that opposed the New Deal. I would imagine that most White Nationalists today are closer to this Old Right than any other pre-existing political perspective.

As for Christian Identity, I used to listen regularly to Pete Peters’ Scriptures for America on shortwave. He was very likable, and even though I didn’t believe in the Bible, or agree with the arguments that he used to make it support his conclusions, the bottom line of what he said was usually good sense. I could get along very well with Pete Peters so long as we didn’t discuss how he arrived at his conclusions.

My general impression of CI after listening for years to discussions about it from some rather educated men was that it would seem to make perfect sense if you started from the unshakable assumption that the Bible was the Word of God and guide for life, and have to reconcile that with being a non-suicidal White person. It is possible for intelligent people to believe in CI, if they are inextricably attached to that assumption. For people that don’t start from that assumption, CI doesn’t solve anything.

The use of the term Mammonism as a derogatory name for the Capitalist ethos comes from Thomas Carlyle, and was used by some others after him.

Gottfried Feder was a Catholic from Wuerzburg, Bavaria, where most people are Catholic. I suspect significant influence of Catholic social thought in his ideas.

What Feder says in the last section of his Manifesto shows that he does not believe in anything like CI (if that’s what was meant):

[M]y proposal does not want to try to improve human nature; rather it applies itself against a toxic substance, against a phenomenon that was artfully – no, diabolically – invented, completely contrary to the deepest feeling of man, in order to make humanity ill, in order to ensnare humanity in materialism, in order to rob from it the best thing that it has, the soul. Hand in hand next to it goes the frightful, pitiless tyranny of the money-powers, for which people are only interest-slaves, exist only to work for the dividend, for interest.

Deeply troubled we recognize the frightful clarity and truth of the old Biblical proverbs, according to which the god of the Jews Yahweh promises to his chosen people: “I want to grant to you to own all treasures of the world; at your feet shall lie all peoples of the Earth and you shall rule over them.” (Hadding Scott translation, 2012)

I think we would have to say that Feder’s attitude toward the Old Testament is ambivalent. He derives some support from it, like the year of jubilee as an argument against the sanctity of interest, but also sees a menace to the world in the Book of Isaiah.

You know, Rodney Martin only published those excerpts from Feder because he is trying to elbow me absolutely out of the spotlight. He’s talking up a book that isn’t even available yet, claiming that it is the best version (which can only reasonably be construed as a comparison to my work that he hasn’t seen), obviously in reaction to the fact that I posted on here a few days ago that I had already completed my translation and that I would be discussing it with Carolyn soon. I can’t say that nobody else is entitled to do what I am doing — or pay somebody else to do it as in this case — but this kind of competitive self-promotion seems to me rather indecent.

Aside from Jesus’ driving of the federal reservists from the house of righteousness, my preferred passage is the one in which he identifies the children of Yahweh as the offspring of a deceiver.

I don’t think Jesus identified “the children of Yahweh” as the offspring of a deceiver. It was the Pharisees he was speaking to. You continue to twist things just enough to provide yourself with some kind of a comeback.

No, that is not so at all Hadding. I have been an agnostic most of my life and still in fact don’t profess to be a 100% believer. I have personal reasons for favoring my belief in God, some of it attached to psychic episodes I’ve had, others involving a recent crash I had in which I could not only have been killed during the crash itself but the hour or so wandering around in subfreezing weather at 2AM totally stunned. That being said, our earliest civilizations embraced gods and notions of there being more than this life. It is a major hallmark of the Aryan man. I can easily accept that the Bible was written by men and is an amalgamation of various stories that are likewise found in older and concurrent societies of the time. There are in fact stories that are not in the cannon that harken to Greek and Viking mythologies which are also almost identical. When you strip out aspects that are mythos, or spiritual in nature, the Bible quite clearly becomes a history book written in a language formulated by an agrarian people that describes their attempt to remain unblemished by intermixing with other races. It is right there in the proper translations of their language. Adam, to show blood in the face, Arab, to be mixed, fornication, the pursuit of strange or different flesh, sheep and goats, wheat and tears, Eassau losing his inheritance because of marrying Hittite women, the descriptions of Israelites as White, etc. it is all there and when you see what is going on TODAY, it is only too clear that it has happened before and the whole point of the Bible is to WARN us how it happened, who the enemy is, and how it is our perpetual weakness to stray even from the Word of our God that keeps landing us in trouble.

I will say that I agree that this Rightist claptrap is a bugaboo. Revili Oliver was anti-Socialist, and I would conclude that while he sympathized with NS Germany and understood that Hitler and he shared a common enemy, he might have some issues with NS in the long run. Even as erudite and well spoken a man as he was too willing to play loose and easy with terms like Socialism and apply them to his analysis of ancient Egypt, instead of going back to the historical record and noting the changes that took place to Egypt’s racial make up during the Middle Period.

I don’t know Peters, but I know Bill Finck, and his ability to synchronize Biblical lore with the archaeological and secular written histories (which I am familiar with) works for me. There is also no question that Hitler was indeed a man with Christian principles. Am I to throw Hitler under the bus because Jimmah or anyone else thinks there is nothing of value in Christianity? No, I don’t think so. Furthermore, I fail to see what is so damned objectionable with Christianity save the current philo-Judaic aspects of it. I know plenty of agnostics and atheists that are very Jew happy as in reality, most Jews are Liberals and atheists. Do if you think you will will over all the anti-theological types, you are dead wrong, they tend towards liberalism, hence are already closer to the enemy than Judeo-Christian buffoons. Hence I would rather turn those Christians towards realizing they are being deceived and get them into our camp. I would use 9/11 to show Ehites at large that we have an Israel problem and that means a Jew problem as 80% of all Jews are Zionist to some degree. Same with the current wars, Palestine, the Iranan issue, the anti-White agenda across the board by Jews shown in their hatred of all White nationalism from the French Revolution to the Bolshevik Revolution, the Spanish Revolution to the flattening of NS Germany right up to the bombing of Serbia and bringing down Rhodesia and South Africa. It is all there, the Jews admit to being at the very least cheerleaders for all of these tragedies though we can show their active participation in all of them.

We need to attack the enemy with EVERY arrow in out quill. So I do not see any reason for this kind of infighting save people’s own idiosyncrasies and egos. Period. We need to organize squads to attack THEM on different fronts. Let’s go after Pollard to see him executed. Let’s stop kosher slaughter in this country, Thr kosher tax, circumcision. DO SOMETHING, but don’t come here a stab me or CI or Odinists or Christianity or whatever in the back because you have your own twist on certain aspects of spirituality or lack thereof. If you are on board with saving the White race, then aim your guns at the enemy and open fire on THEM. Is that do damned hard?

And no, Yeshuasid not say the Children of YHWH were the bad ones, duh. He said the bad figs were NOT the true children of God. If you are going to complain about CI at least KNOW what the hell you are talking about.

Funny how THE most overtly pro-WN Christian sect, CI, draws such vitriol from ignorant poseurs who claim to be White Advocates. Even insinuating that it is mentally unsound!!! Talk about chutzpah!!! This from people who have no belief or faith they can express save love of their own personal skins. Not for nothing Jimmah or ZOG, but I would not trust either of you to watch my back in a foxhole or firefight. You would be running for the hills as soon as the poop hit the fan. Your skipping out on us now would serve the cause better than your hanging around sewing dissension. Just my personal opinion.

A side note to Hadding seeing as he brought it up on this thread. Gottfried Feder’s books make good artifacts and interesting reading I am sure. But the Movement will not rise or fall on them, and it is obvious from the whole Ron Paul movement that lots of people understand the core message, if interested at all in what someone in the Third Reich had to say, they can read Mein Kampf, Hitler devotes a fair amount of space to usury and the international stick exchange and finance capital, without beating it into the ground.

I work for a living and I contribute what I can to the cause freely for the love of my people and in hopes that my kids will have a better future in their own country. I think you and Rodney should dispense free pdf’s of the book and if you must make money, print up hard copies for distribution the libraries and whoops.